I don’t envy Fran Hoeg’s position as moderator. It’s a daunting and largely thankless task. While she may have the best seat in the house, there have got to be times when she feels like she’s getting a duck’s eye view of a shotgun blast.

Every few years we a town meeting which features THE ARTICLE which draws people out of the woodwork and transforms a quorum hungry gathering into a standing room only event.
This last town meeting was one such dozy and it is still not over – although the worst of the storm has likely passed. Without getting partisan over issues, several suggestions were heard in the halls which are worth passing on for consideration for future town meetings.
Child Care: For the record, I think the town should offer and advertise child care services for parents of little ones attending all evening town meetings. But the service should be part of the town meeting package and not a benefit of being a voter on one side of an issue or another.

Speaking: After the various boards authorized to speak on a question, debate should be turned over to the public as quickly as possible. Our elected leaders have to forum all year long – town meeting is the people’s turn to speak.

When a major article, like 40R, arrives on the scene everyone and their brother wants to weigh in on the issue – as is their right. But when you have over a thousand people in attendance the right to speak collides with the clock and human endurance. An “open window” limit should be set by the moderator during which motions to move the question will not be entertained by the chair.

Speaking by Lottery: To truly level the playing field anyone who wishes to speak for or against the question should be asked to write their name on a slip of paper and deposit the slip into one of two baskets; one marked “For” and the other labeled “Against”. Names can be deposited in the appropriate baskets at any time while the question remains on the floor.
The first speaker is usually the one moving the article and after the pitch the article’s mover would reach into the “Against” basket and pull the name of the next speaker and hand it to the moderator. The switch back and forth between pro and con with speakers would continue until the time limit has expired.

If the person recognized is not present or declines to speak the moderator would then pull a new name from the proper basket. If either basket is empty, the moderator can assume that either the debate has been exhausted or the debaters are themselves exhausted.
Post your suggestions online at kingstonobserver.com.